Development of a student-centered instrument to assess middle school students’conceptual understanding of sound

Haim EshachBen Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva 8410501, Israel

(Received 10 March 2013; published 21 January 2014)

This article describes the development and field test of the Sound Concept Inventory Instrument (SCII),designed to measure middle school students’ concepts of sound. The instrument was designed based onknown students’ difficulties in understanding sound and the history of science related to sound and focuseson two main aspects of sound: sound has material properties, and sound has process properties. The finalSCII consists of 71 statements that respondents rate as either true or false and also indicate their confidenceon a five-point scale. Administration to 355 middle school students resulted in a Cronbach alpha of 0.906,suggesting a high reliability. In addition, the average percentage of students’ answers to statements thatassociate sound with material properties is significantly higher than the average percentage of statementsassociating sound with process properties (p < 0.001). The SCII is a valid and reliable tool that can be usedto determine students’ conceptions of sound.

DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.10.010102 PACS numbers: 01.40.−d, 43.10.Sv

I. INTRODUCTION

The goal of this paper is to describe the development of astudent-centered instrument aiming at assessing students’conceptual understanding of sound. I will first providesome background, such as the need for the development ofsuch an instrument, and the differences between the tradi-tional convergent-type assessment tool and the studentcentered one presented here. I will then describe the datasources used for developing the instrument, namely, stu-dents’ concepts of sound and historical concepts of sound.After this background, I will describe the development ofthe instrument itself, how the objectives or themes of theinstrument were determined, the form of the questionnaire,how the items were developed, and how the instrument wastested.

II. STANDARDIZED ASSESSMENT TESTS:AN OVERVIEW

A. The need for an assessment instrument in sound

1. Why are standardized tests important?

The present study joins the long term interest amongstscience education researchers in creating valid, standard-ized, meaningful, and practical instruments for assessingschool students’ understanding of concepts in physics; inthis case, the concept of sound. Efforts to develop assess-ment tools have been made in a variety of physics domains,

such asmechanics (e.g. the Force Concept Inventory [1], theMechanics Baseline Test [2], and the Test of UnderstandingGraphs in Kinematics [3]), astronomy [4], optics [5], andelectromagnetics [6]. Assessment tools may help teachers toidentify difficulties and barriers faced by their students inunderstanding scientific phenomena, as Vosniadou et al.’s[6] (p. 392) following quotation notes:

“The realization that students do not come to school asempty vessels but have representations, beliefs, andpresuppositions about the way the physical worldoperates that are difficult to change has importantimplications for the design of science instruction.Teachers need to be informed about how students seethe physical world and learn to take their points of viewinto consideration when they design instruction. Instruc-tional interventions need to be designed to makestudents aware of their implicit representations, as wellas of the beliefs and presuppositions that constrainthem.”

Identifying students’ misconceptions is therefore acrucial step in the teaching process that may enable teachersto design effective learning environments that help reshapestudents’ initial knowledge into scientifically acceptedunderstanding [5,7]. Indeed, according to different theoriesof conceptual change, during the teaching process we maywant to address students’ existing spontaneous reasoning,replace it, reorganize it, or refine and build on it [8].Support for the importance of the need for valid

standardized assessment tools can be found in otherdomains of science education as well. For instance, inmaking the point for the importance of developing a validstandardized assessment tool for examining students’ viewsof the nature of science (NOS), researchers claim that such

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms ofthe Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Further distri-bution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) andthe published articles title, journal citation, and DOI.

PHYSICAL REVIEW SPECIAL TOPICS - PHYSICS EDUCATION RESEARCH 10, 010102 (2014)

1554-9178=14=10(1)=010102(14) 010102-1 Published by the American Physical Society

assessment tools may enable NOS to be included in large-scale assessments at the state or national level [9]. Doingso, according to Chen [10], might change the currentsituation, in which NOS does not receive the requisiteattention it ought to in today’s schools. Developing anassessment instrument for the concept of sound might makesimilar changes in the attention it receives from schools,which also does not currently meet its requirements [11].Such an instrument would also allow science educators

and teachers to conduct comparison studies and relatestudents’ conceptual understanding of sound to othermeasurable educational outcomes. In addition, althoughthe present study aims at developing an assessment tool formiddle school students, it might be useful in assessing theperception of middle school science teachers as well (forother instances in which this has proven to be the case, seeTrumper [12]).

2. Why sound?

If one goal of science education is advancing students’learning about their own world and about ”usefulknowledge” (see Layton [13], especially chap. 5), thenthe subject of sound should be an essential component ofscience curricula. For students to understand theoreticaland practical questions, such as whether one can hear soundin water, why it is dangerous to listen to loud music, how aphysician’s stethoscope works, or how ultrasound works,they require a firm foundation in physical science conceptsconnected with sound [11]. Also, according to Hrepic et al.[7], because sound is a wave phenomenon, its under-standing may contribute significantly to understandingboth classical and modern physics. Thus, identifying thepreconceptions that prevent students from properly under-standing sound phenomena deserves a central place withinthe science curriculum and should also be addressed inscience education research.

B. Assessment instruments: traditionalconvergent-type vs student-centered

In recent years, several objections have been raised inrelation to the use of convergent-type instruments to assesslearners’ conceptions. In such instruments students mustchoose between predefined answers, which reflect the ideasthat the instrument’s developers believe students mighthave, thus preventing students from providing answers oftheir own that express their true perceptions. For example,in the case of the use of multiple-choice instruments forassessing students’ views concerning NOS, many research-ers have argued that by forcing a choice between givenanswers, convergent-type instruments could impose theinstrument developers’ conceptions of NOS on respondents[14–15], which would threaten these instruments’ validity[16]. Student centered instruments seek to address thisconcern. In such instruments, students are asked to providetheir own answers.

Instruments of this sort include in-depth interviews,which have proven to be extremely fruitful [3,17–18]and open-ended questionnaires [15]. However, interviewsand open-ended instruments are not immune to criticismeither. Indeed, researchers have detailed several weaknessesof open-ended tools. For instance, Chen [10] argues that itis challenging for participants to fully articulate their viewsin 40–60 minutes, and it is difficult for researchers to gainthe intended information from every participant. Indeed, inmy own experience, whenever students are asked to fillopen-ended questionnaires, they tend to use short laconicanswers that do not necessarily clarify their understandingof the topic. Furthermore, open-ended questions require amuch higher level of writing ability, so that the tests maymeasure writing ability more than they do understanding ofa topic. It is not surprising therefore that Lederman’s groupthemselves [18] suggest conducting follow-up interviews toclarify whether what was written in the open questionnairethat they developed indeed reflects students’ views. Thefollow-up interviews, according to these authors, providestudents the opportunity to further elaborate on andarticulate their answers and views.Interviews, open-ended questionnaires, or a combination

of the two all share an additional difficulty—namely, thatthey are practically untenable in a large sample of studentsbecause of the enormous resources necessary for such anundertaking—resources that are usually not available toresearchers [19]. Furthermore, according to Beichner [3]“the ability to statistically analyze data from large numbersof objectively graded multiple choice exams may allowgreater generalizability of the findings, albeit with lowerresolution than interview-based results” (p. 750). In sum-mary, it seems that, on the one hand, open-ended ques-tionnaires and especially interviews—or a combination ofboth—can have greater resolution than multiple-choicetests, but, on the other hand, these tools are limited incases where large-scale assessment is needed.One course of action offered by researchers that may

provide some solution to the above concern is to use astudent-centered process to construct the instrument itemsas follows: (a) using known students’ misconceptions asdistracters in questionnaires that aim at identifying stu-dents’ difficulties (e.g. [20–21]). Instead of basing itsconception of students’ possible viewpoints on the postu-lations of education theory of research, this approach basesits assumptions on empirical records of false perceptionsstudents are known to have had. This basis may bring anunusually high degree of validity to the instrument’sdistracters, because the meaning that students read intothe instrument choices tends to be the same meaning thatstudents would express if they were spontaneously verbal-izing their own views in an interview [22]. (b) Allowstudents, in an open-ended format, to articulate whateverideas they deem representative of their viewpoint on thetarget issue. For this purpose, the following choice should

HAIM ESHACH PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES 10, 010102 (2014)

010102-2

be added to each of the questionnaire’s questions: “None ofthe above choices fits my basic viewpoint. My basicviewpoint is (please explain your viewpoint in the spaceprovided below)” [19].

C. Selecting data sources

The development of a student-centered instrument aim-ing at assessing students’ conceptual understanding ofsound must take into account the elements in compre-hending sound that students find most difficult. To this end,we made use of two main data sources in the developmentof the instrument process: known students’ difficulties inunderstanding sound and the history of science. The historyof science can be a useful data source because some of thecommon misconceptions about scientific concepts (includ-ing sound) that may be found in historical texts correspondto similar misconceptions in modern students. The mis-conceptions of historical figures can therefore be used toidentify similar misconceptions amongst students [11,23].A brief description of the various ways in which sound hadbeen (mis)understood will therefore be provided.But before presenting students’ difficulties in under-

standing sound and briefly describing its historical develop-ment, it is worthwhile to first describe what ninth gradestudents are expected to know about sound (in this case,based on their progression through the uniform nationalIsraeli science curriculum). Students at this age shouldknow that (a) sound needs a material medium; it cannot becreated in a vacuum; (b) sound is related to its medium’spressure change; and (c) sound can propagate not onlythrough air but also through liquids such as water andthrough solids. The scientific view, of course, does notperceive sound as a kind of matter, although it requiresmatter (as a medium). A deep understanding of soundshould therefore include the understanding that sound itselfis not a kind of matter, but rather that it is a materialphenomenon.

D. Students’ concepts of sound

Naive conceptions of sound have not been studiedextensively [24]. Boyes and Stanisstreet [25] examinedmiddle school students’ conceptions of the path of soundbetween a source and a listener. The subjects werepresented with a picture of a radio and one of a person.They were asked to answer the question, “How do youthink sound travels, enabling the person to hear what is onthe radio?” and to draw arrows on the picture indicating thedirection of the sound path. The results showed that onlyabout 40% of the younger pupils (ages 11–13) and 78% ofthe older group (ages 13–16) indicated that sound travelsfrom the source to the hearer. Asoko et al. [26] investigatedpupils between the ages of 4 and 16, and found thatyounger children often link the production of sound withtheir own actions, or consider sound to be a part of theobject from which it originated. In addition, Asoko et al.

found that the notion of sound traveling within the airexisted only amongst 16 year olds (having a 70% referencewithin this group).Chi and colleagues [27–29] suggest that students’ mis-

conceptions are attributable to a mismatch between theontological categories to which subjects assign conceptsand the ontological categories to which concepts usuallybelong. In physics, for example, subjects have troubleunderstanding concepts such as electrical current, heat, andlight because they assign these entities to the category of”matter” when they belong to the ontological category of”processes” [30]. Chi et al. state that “novices seeminclined toward materialistic or substance-based concep-tions” (p. 2) when it comes to describing abstract physicsconcepts. For instance, students may perceive electriccurrent as a kind of “electricity juice” or “electron juice,”which is the current itself and flows from one end of a wireto the other, rather than viewing electric current as a processinvolving the entire circuit, including material elementssuch as electrons. This was found to be valid for the case ofsound too [24].Several studies have identified a tendency towards

materialistic perceptions of sound amongst middle schoolstudents. For instance, a study described by Driver et al.[31] is that of Watt and Russell [32], which suggests thatmiddle school students may envisage sound as an invisibleobject with dimensions, which requires space in order tomove. Eshach and Schwartz [11] used Reiner et al.’ssubstance schema—properties that are common to materialsubstances and that may be extended generally to describeany material substance—to examine whether middle schoolstudents possess materialistic thinking of sound. Consistentwith the substance schema, sound was perceived by theparticipants as being pushable, frictional, containable, ortransitional. All in all, it seems that sound, which is acommon phenomenon that we experience every day, is anarea in which students display numerous difficulties inunderstanding.

E. Historical conceptions of sound

Connections between historical perceptions of scientificconcepts and students’ views of these concepts have beendocumented in the literature. Chi [27], for instance, claimsthat “there is an explicit similarity in the conceptions ofphysical science concepts by naïve students and medievalscientists, and I interpret this correspondence to arise fromboth groups of people having adopted a material substanceview” (p. 159). The following quote from Lucretius, aGreek philosopher from 100 B.C., illustrates the observa-tion underlying Chi’s claim:“The fact that voices and other sounds can impinge on

the senses is itself a proof of their corporeal nature. Besides,the voice often scrapes the throat and a shout roughens thewindpipe on its outward path. What happens is that, whenatoms of voice in greater numbers than usual have begun to

DEVELOPMENT OF A STUDENT-CENTERED … PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES 10, 010102 (2014)

010102-3

squeeze out through the narrow outlet, the doorway of theovercrowded mouth gets scraped. Undoubtedly, if voiceand words have this power of causing pain, they mustconsist of corporeal particles” [33] (pp. 146–147).Since historical ideas of a scientific concept can also be

found in students’ views of this same concept [11], it isargued herein that historical material can be used whiledeveloping an instrument that aims to examine students’views concerning this concept. It is important to stress inthis context that ideas taken from history were incorporatedinto the questionnaire only after a thorough literaturereview had made it clear that similarly material perceptionsof sound—ideas that correlate to the historical ones—hadbeen identified in modern students. The historical con-ceptions thus merely served to provide detailed content forplausible distracters, not as independent suggestions forpossible misconceptions.

III. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUND CONCEPTINVENTORY INSTRUMENT (SCII)

A. Determining the SCII objectives or themes

According to Beichner [3], once it is established thatdeveloping a questionnaire is a worthwhile effort, it isnecessary to formulate a list of specific objectives thatrelate to an understanding of the concept at which thequestionnaire is aimed. Based on the literature review, ininterviews with five high school physics teachers, threephysics professors, and two physics education professors,the following two main objectives were identified:

1. Students at the middle school level shouldunderstand that sound is a process phenomenoncharacterized by the following(a) sound is connected to movement of the medi-

um’s particles;(b) sound relates to changes in the medium’s

pressure or density.2. Students should understand that sound does not

possess material characteristics. The followinglist of material characteristics, which studentsmust understand sound not to have, is based onthe work of Reiner et al. [30] and Eshach andSchwartz [11].(a) invisible material;(b) having a corpuscular nature–having surface and

volume;(c) being pushable—able to push and be pushed—

I. by objects, and II. by the medium;(d) being frictional—experiencing “drag” when

moving in contact with some surface;(e) being containable—able to be contained by

something;(f) being consumable—capable of being depleted;(g) being gravity sensitive—falls down when

dropped;

(h) hearing being influenced by the sound particle’ssize or number;

(i) being able to pass in a vacuum—according toHrepic et al.’s [7] view that sound propagatesthrough the vacuum indicates that sound isviewed as an independent kind of material.

This list of material characteristics of sound is based onthe “substance scheme,” namely, those properties that arecommon to material substances and which may beextended generally to describe any material substance[30]. Eshach and Schwartz [11] recommended that inthe case of sound Reiner et al.’s substance scheme wouldhave to be revised. The list above is therefore a morespecifically adapted substance scheme for sound.

B. Deciding the questionnaire’s form

Usually assessment instruments that examine students’conceptual understanding of a scientific concept aremultiple-choice questionnaires, in which students mustchoose from amongst several statements the one that theybelieve best explains a problem. While this form ofquestionnaire would have been easily applicable here, Ichose another format, in which the students are required—instead of choosing just one item—to respond to all ofthem, stating for each whether it is correct or not. Roedelet al. [34] argue that by utilizing a mechanism that demandsthe reader to choose more than only one correct answer,researchers can better pinpoint students’ level of under-standing of a particular concept. In the same manner, theinstrument presented in this paper enables the students tochoose more than one correct or incorrect statement. Thisformat is particularly well suited to identifying situations inwhich students hold views of sound as being associatedboth with processes (e.g. changes in pressure or density ofthe medium) and with matter (e.g. perceiving sound as”pushable”).The students were also asked to decide the level of their

confidence in their answer on a 5 point scale, and only theanswers for which the students’ confidence was 4 or higherwere used in the data analysis. The decision to address onlythe data from the higher certainty levels was made—inconsultation with experts—in order to tighten the dataanalysis. This, I believe, is especially important whiledeveloping a new instrument. Adding the reference to theircertainty level allows us to address problems that arise fromthe possibility that the students are guessing. If a participantmarked a particular statement as true, but marked a verylow certainty level, we can suppose this choice to have beena guess, and address it appropriately. In this respect, thequestionnaire differs from standard multiple choice ques-tionnaires, which do not distinguish between questions thatparticipants are sure about and questions to which they haveguessed the answers.Finally, in addition to the predefined statements in each

question, the students were also provided with the

HAIM ESHACH PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES 10, 010102 (2014)

010102-4

following option: “None of the above choices fits my basicviewpoint. My basic viewpoint is (please explain yourviewpoint in the space provided below)”. All of thestudents’ open-ended answers were read and reread bythe author and one physics teacher separately. After readingthe answers the author and the physics teacher decidedwhether indeed the student had provided an answer thatdoes not exist in the predefined statement, or whether thestudent’s answer could be associated with one of thepredefined statements, expressed in different words butconveying the same meaning. Since only a few studentsused the option of providing their own answers, the wholeprocess took about 3 hours for each reader, after which theauthor and the physics teacher met together to discuss theirdecisions on each open answer. This process took about 2hours. Of these open answers, 20% included statementssuch as, “I do not know the answer” or “I have no idea.” Inthis case, the “no” option in the questionnaire was chosenfor that question in the SPSS file. The rest of the students’answers (80%) were in fact differently worded expressionsof an idea presented in the predefined statements. Thesestatements were input to the analysis.

C. Determining the assessment tool’s items

1. Using students’ difficulties

As was noted earlier, one solution to the concern thatmultiple-choice questionnaires may not reflect students’own concepts but rather those of the instrument developersis to use students’ own ideas as distractors. Question 13 inthe questionnaire (see Appendix), taken from Eshach andSchwartz [11], where interviews with middle schoolstudents concerning a variety of sound phenomena wereconducted, is such an example. Distractors a, b, d, and ewere provided by the students in that study (i.e. they weretaken from their interviews). The idea of gravity (noted bystudents and used in distractor b, question 13) was alsoused in question 16 in the questionnaire (see Appendix).

2. Using historical materials

Here are two examples demonstrating the use of his-torical material for the purpose of this instrument. Indeveloping question 12 (see Appendix), I was inspiredby Lucretius’s view of sound (see theoretical backgroundsection). Distractors a and b of the question reflect the ideathat sounds are corpuscular particles that can have thepower to scrape the throat. Distractor a reflects the exactmeaning in the quotation while distractor b reflects an ideastudents expressed in my previous study [11]. The histo-rically based distractor a provides an additional possibilityfor the students to choose from, while still clearly reflectinga very similar, material view of sound to that based on theperceptions of modern students (i.e. distractor b).Question8f in the questionnaire (see Appendix) reflects Isaac

Beeckman’s (1588–1637) view of sound: when we speak,the sound coming out of our mouths is carried in invisiblebubbles. These bubbles are pushed by the air, and whenthey reach the hearer’s ears, the sound exits the bubbles andenters the ears.Isaac Beeckman supposed that sound travels through the

air as globules of sonic data. He considered that everyvibrating object cuts the air around it into small sphericalcorpuscles. Those corpuscles are forced to travel in the airin all directions by the motion of the source and areobtained by ears as sound [35]. Eshach and Scwartz [11](p. 751) showed that middle school students evidencesimilar ideas, as expressed in the following citation:

“In response to the question about two people talking. . . . . . . . . . . . . a few students drew pictures of bubbles

that contained and carried sound from a person’s mouth. . . . . . One student answered: ’Sound is like bubbles ofnoise. Like small balls. Inside the balls there is a noise.When those balls open the sound comes out. That is howI understand it.’ ”

D. Expert examination of the instrument

To establish face and content validity, seven experts wereasked to review the instrument. These consisted of twophysics professors teaching physics at a university level,two university science education lecturers, and threeexperienced high school physics teachers. This falls withinthe literature’s rough consensus regarding the number ofexperts deemed sufficient for content validity. Yaghmaei[36] suggests three. Rubio, Berg-Weger, Tebb, Lee, andRauch [37] recommend including three to ten experts. Chen[10] used six experts.The seven experts were asked to review the first version

of the questionnaire. More specifically they were asked to(a) complete the test, (b) associate each item with one of theinstrument’s objectives, (c) comment on the appropriate-ness of the objectives, (d) criticize the items, and (e) give agrade of 1 to 10 for each item in terms of its clarity. Theywere also invited to comment on the format and on how thephrasing of the statements could be improved. Then, all theexperts and I met to discuss the comments and suggestions.Some items were modified or removed, and finally onlyitems that were agreed upon by all of the experts as a resultof the discussion were left in the final version.

E. Statements’ clarity

After arriving at agreement on all the items, the finaldraft version was given to five middle school students, whowere asked to read each of the questions and explain in theirown words what they meant. The students were also askedto complete the questionnaire. Their comments wereintegrated into the questionnaire’s final draft. These stu-dents were not included in the research sample.

DEVELOPMENT OF A STUDENT-CENTERED … PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES 10, 010102 (2014)

010102-5

F. Pilot study

The draft versions of the test were administrated to 70students from 2 schools. The results were used to modifyseveral of the questions. As a result of this process threequestions were completely removed from the question-naire, as their item discrimination index was not satisfying.Individual item discrimination index statistics indicate howwell the instrument distinguishes top scoring students frompoorly performing students and should be greater than 0.3[3]. In addition, 5 of the 70 students were interviewed andasked to repeat the questions in their own words as well asanswer them. As a result of this process, another five itemswere slightly modified to further examine interestingpatterns emerging from the preliminary data analysis.The revised tests then underwent another session of

expert examination until the experts agreed on the finalversion of the test.

IV. TESTING THE SCII

A. Participants

The final draft of the test was distributed to 355 ninthgrade students from across Israel; 170 students were maleand the remaining 185 were female. About 30% of thestudents were Israeli Arabs, and 70% of them Israeli Jews;80% of the students were from cities, while the remaining20% were from villages or small towns. All of the schoolsincluded students from middle class socioeconomic status.Sound is not part of the middle school science curricu-

lum, but ninth graders do learn about electromagneticradiation and that this radiation does not require anymedium to pass through. To clarify this idea, teachers oftencompare the electromagnetic waves with sound waves and

explain to the students that, unlike electromagnetic waves,sound waves do require a medium in order to travel fromone place to another. Teachers also connect sound tochanges in air pressure and density. A very popular experi-ment that teachers are familiar with and demonstrate to theirstudents is that of putting a ringing clock inside a vacuumbell and showing the students that the ringing clock is notheard when air is taken out of the vacuum bell. Therefore,although sound is not directly included in the middle schoolscience curriculum, students do learn the subject indirectly.It took students between 40 and 60 minutes to complete

the questionnaire.

B. Individual item discrimination index

The discrimination index for each of the assessment tool’sstatements with respect to the upper and lower 27% of thesamples was calculated. One item, the discriminating powerof which was still less than 0.3 in this form of thequestionnaire, was discarded from the SCII. All the others’discriminationpowerwas found to be in the rangeof 0.3–0.7,ensuring the high quality of the assessment tool’s statements.

C. Internal reliability

Each of the questionnaire’s statements was associatedwith one of the predefined categories and their subcate-gories. These categories were based on conclusions drawnfrom a literature review, and from consultation with experts(see Sec. III A titled “Determining the SCII objectives orthemes” above for details). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient fordichotomous variables KR-20 was computed for the entirequestionnaire, the two main objectives, and their subcate-gories. The results are presented in Table I.

TABLE I. Mean score and alpha Cronbach for the entire questionnaire and its subcategories.

ISSUE STATEMENTS α MEAN (SD)

Entire questionnaire 71 items 0.906 27%(15.78%)Process properties 23 items 0.809 39.47%(22.88%)Connected to medium’s particles movement 1b, 8e, 13c 0.423 40.12%(23.34%)Relates to changes in medium’s pressureor density

2d, 3a, 4c, 5b, 6d, 7b, 8d, 9e, 10b, 11d, 12c,14b, 15a, 16c, 17c, 18a, 19c, 19d, 20b,20d

0.764 35.97%(32.22%)

Materialistic properties 48 items 0.83 23.42%(15.87%)Invisible material 3c, 3d,4a, 6a, 8f, 20a 0.531 33.05%(25.02%)Corpuscular 1a,2a,2b,2c,4b,5a, 6c,8a,8b,8c,10a,

11b,12a,12d,12e,13d,15b,16d,19a,19b0.83 22.71%(20.00%)

Pushable By objects 2a,2b, 2c, 3b, 5a, 6c, 8a, 11b, 12d, 15b, 17a 0.624 19.02%(18.87%)By medium 3b, 8f, 10a,12e, 13a 0.591 27.25%(26.75%)Frictional 7a, 8c, 9c, 10c, 11a, 13d, 14a, 18b 0.509 24.02%(19.26%)Containable 4a, 4b, 6a, 6b, 8f, 9a, 9d, 17b 0.636 33.00%(20.82%)Consumable 11c, 16e 0.327 22.96%(32.56%)Gravity sensitive 13b, 16a, 16b 0.705 23.48%(33.63%)Hearing is influenced by size or numberof sound particles

1a, 2b, 8b, 8c, 12a, 12b, 19b 0.708 26.95%(24.67%)

Pass in vacuum 9b, 13e, 20c 0.451 48.40%(31.12%)

HAIM ESHACH PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES 10, 010102 (2014)

010102-6

As Table I shows, the alpha Cronbach of the entirequestionnaire is pretty high, 0.96. The alpha Cronbachresults of the process properties and material propertiesdistractors are also quite satisfactory (0.809 and 0.83,respectively). Overall students’ percentage of correctanswers to the entire questionnaire is 27%.The results also show that students associate sound with

both material and process properties. Interestingly, thepercentage of distractors indicating process properties thatthey marked as “correct” is higher than the percentage ofdistractors indicating materialistic properties that theymarked as “incorrect” (39.47% vs 23.42%). This meansthat that the students agreed with about 75% of thedistractors that indicated that sound has material proper-ties—reflecting a materialistic thinking of sound, and withabout 40% of the distractors that indicated process proper-ties—reflecting an association of sound with process. Inaddition, the range of the percentage of answers marked as“correct” for each of the process properties subcategories isbetween 35% and 41%, and for answers marked as“incorrect” for each of the material properties subcategoriesthe percentage ranges between 19% and 49%. The lowestmean percentage of statements marked as “incorrect” in thematerial subcategories was for “pushable by object”(19.02%). This means that for about 80% of the statementsthat students chose as correct that sound can be pushed byobjects, and that students were certain of their response.

V. DISCUSSION

The purpose of this research was to develop the student-centered Sound Concept Inventory Instrument, aiming atdetermining middle school students’ conceptions of sound.Following Beichner [3], the assessment instrument devel-opment included the formulation of the assessment tool’sobjectives, constructing the instrument’s items, and per-forming reliability and validity checks. A variety of sourceswere used, such as a literature review of students’ conceptsof sound, middle school students’ responses to the first andsecond drafts of the questionnaire, physics textbooks,historical materials, and a panel of experts, includingexperienced physics teachers, physics professors, andscience education professors with an extensive physicsbackground. The experts were asked not only to examinethe validity of the first draft of the test, but also to suggestother questions, or additional distractors for existing ques-tions. This embracing of multiple sources is in line withCreswell [38], who suggests that we must “discuss plans totriangulate, or find convergence among sources of infor-mation, different investigators, or different methods of datacollection” (p. 158) in order to increase the internal validityof an instrument. The use of the historical materials as asource was important and enriched the assessment tool. Ascan be seen from the testing of the instrument, students dopossess concepts that existed through the history of soundconcept development. This agrees with Galiliand Hazan [5]

according to whom the history of science reveals thedifficulties of today’s students.What emerged and was agreed upon by all the experts—

after reading the literature review on students’ conceptionof sound and reviewing the historical development of theconcept of sound, textbooks, and students’ interviews—isthat the majority of students’ conception of sound can bedivided into the following two main categories, as sug-gested by Chi [27]: (1) sound has material properties and(2) sound has process properties. The final form of thequestionnaire includes 20 questions, composed of a total of71 statements. Of those, 48 statements associate sound withmaterialistic properties, and 23 statements associate soundwith processes.The format used in the questionnaire allowed the

students who completed it to decide whether the statementsrelating to the problems were true or false, and also to whatdegree they felt confidence in their answer on a 1–5confidence scale. The confidence scale is very important,because a choice between true and false gives students a50% chance of being correct, and without the scale we ran agreat risk of counting guesses as correct answers based onrelative certainty. To address this concern, only answerswith a confidence level of 4 or 5 were used for the testanalysis.This was not a typical format for questionnaires. Usually

the students have to choose the one option they believe bestreflects the answer to the given question. The SSCIquestionnaire can be used as a simple multiple choiceone. However, adding the true or false element and thecertainty scale provides additional information aboutstudents’ perceptions, such as their associations of soundto both materialistic and process properties, even in thesame problem.The statistical results concerning the alpha Cronbach of

the entire SCII questionnaire (71 items) is 0.906, and thealpha Cronbach of its main subcategories is 0.809 for itemsthat associate sound with process characteristics and 0.83for items associating sound with materialistic character-istics. These statistical results are very satisfying, ensuringthat the SCII is highly reliable. As to the process andmaterial properties subcategories, their alpha Cronbachranges between 0.327 and 0.83. It is not surprising thatsome of these alpha Cronbach are smaller than 0.7, sinceeach of these subcategories consists of only a few items.The low alpha Cronbach of these subcategories may cast

doubts upon the instrument’s reliability, but it is worthnoting in this context that the sound inventory wasdeveloped as an empirically based, student-centered instru-ment. Conventional concepts of validity and reliabilitycannot necessarily be applied to such empirically baseddeveloped instruments, because they emerge from a quali-tative perspective [39–40], which stresses the trustworthi-ness and authenticity of data [41] rather than its consistencyacross constructs and measurements [10]. Many who have

DEVELOPMENT OF A STUDENT-CENTERED … PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES 10, 010102 (2014)

010102-7

claimed this also argue that such instruments yield depend-able results because the items originate from the respon-dent’s point of view instead of from the researcher’spresumption of reasonable answers, a process that alsoreduces the ambiguity of the items, and altogether yieldshigh reliability.The results from the sample used to test the instrument

revealed that the average percentage of students’ answers tostatements that associate sound with material properties issignificantly higher (76.58%) than the average percentageof statements associating sound with process properties(39.47%). A Wilcoxon signed ranks test revealed thatthis difference is statistically significant (Z ¼ 10.56,p < 0.001). A possible explanation for this result can besupported by Vosniaduo’s framework theory [42] as fol-lows. According to this theory, children start the knowledgeacquisition process by organizing their everyday experi-ences into a naïve physics framework theory characterizedby distinct ontological and epistemological commitmentsthat are fundamentally different from current science. Thematerialistic thinking implies that the sound substancescheme may be considered as a framework theory; onemay call it the material framework theory, yielded bychildren’s organization of their everyday experiences.Indeed, even children as young as 4 years old possessthe notion of substance conservation. Au, Siddle, andRollins [43] found that children at this age understand thatsugar dissolved in water continues to exist, even though itbecomes invisible in the process.Students try to explain different phenomena in light of

the materialistic framework. In this process, the newscientific information is gradually added on to the existingbut incompatible knowledge base, creating fragmentation,inconsistency, and synthetic models. This might be thereason that some of the students, in addition to thematerialistic properties, though to a far lesser extent,expressed process properties as well. For instance, studentsmight have heard about sound being a wave and that thiswave is connected to air and pressure. This might leadthem, in some situations, to decide that the statements thatinclude the terms “pressure” and “air” are true, andfurthermore to be confident in their decision. The differentquestions on the questionnaire may also have activateddifferent students’ ideas, based on their individual context.Regarding students’ materialistic view, it is worth notingthat the average percentages of statements associatingsound with materialistic properties were high in all ofthe materialistic properties assessed by the instrument. Itseems that middle school students view sound as a kind ofinvisible material, corpuscular in nature, which has size andweight, can be pushed, can be contained, can experience“drag” when moving in contact with some surface, and canmove in a vacuum independently of the medium.It is interesting to note that about half of the participants

believe that sound can pass through a vacuum. According

to Hrepic et al. [7], students’ misconception that sound canpropagate through vacuum strengthens the idea that stu-dents view sound as material because propagating througha vacuum indicates viewing sound as independent.However, in this study the average percentage of answersassociating sound as being able to propagate through avacuum was about 50%, much lower than the averagepercentage to answers associating sound with other materi-alistic properties. This result might be explained by the factthat the experiment of a “clock in a vacuum” is quite typicaland many middle schools make use of it. Students maytherefore have discovered through such an experiment thatsound cannot propagate through a vacuum. Knowing thisone fact, however, does not lead these students to doubttheir more general belief that sound is indeed material.

VI. CONCLUSION

According to Engelhardt and Beichner [44] the wide-spread use of test instruments such as the Force ConceptInventory (FCI) [1] and the Test of Understanding Graphsin Kinematics [3] has brought in a new way of evaluatingstudents’ conceptual understanding. Engelhardt andBeichner further say that more instruments need to bedeveloped in a variety of areas to allow instructors to betterevaluate their students’ understanding of physics conceptsand to evaluate new teaching endeavors for their feasibility.In a sense, this paper is a response to their call, describingthe development of a tool for assessing middle schoolstudents’ understanding of sound, an area of physics forwhich no such tool previously existed.The SCII assessment tool may contribute to three aspects

of the field of science education: instruction, research, andmethodology. Concerning the instructional aspect, it isworth noting that although the subject of sound should bean essential component of science curricula [11] and itsunderstanding may contribute significantly to understand-ing both classical and modern physics [7], it does notreceive the attention it deserves in school [11]. Theexistence of the SCII, which might be used as a large-scale assessment tool at the state or national level, maycontribute in changing this situation. Its results may lead toa discussion among physics educators on whether thephysics of sound should be taught in more depth in schoolsand what topics should be included in the curriculum.Furthermore, it may be hoped that the SCII will helpteachers modify their instruction to better address studentdifficulties with understanding sound.From a research point of view, the existence of the SCII

may help researchers to address a variety of researchquestions, such as whether there are gender differencesin understanding the concept of sound. It could also help toassess novel learning environments, since many instru-ments like the SCII are used in pre- and post-instructionanalysis [45]. The SCII may also encourage the

HAIM ESHACH PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES 10, 010102 (2014)

010102-8

development of such assessment tools for primary school,high school, and university students too.From a methodological point of view, this paper provides

a demonstration of how to build a student-centered assess-ment tool. In this regard the work of Rebello and Zollman[45] may come to mind. They have compared students’responses on four multiple-choice FCI questions withsimilar responses to equivalent open-ended questions.They found that a significant percentage of the open-endedresponses fell into categories that are not included in theFCI multiple choices. When these alternative categorieswere presented to the students as distractors in a revisedmultiple-choice format, a significant percentage of thestudents chose these alternative responses. Rebello andZollman warn us that using tools such as the FCI toevaluate the contribution of an intervention on under-standing of the subject the assessment tool was designedfor is problematic because “the effect of distracters couldchange during the course of instruction. The distracters thatare effective before students have completed instructionmay be ineffective or more effective after instruction.”A student-centered questionnaire like the SCII, wherestudents are encouraged to provide their own explanation,might help to improve the accuracy of such tools inpinpointing students’ understanding of the subject theyare designed to assess.As to the limits of the SCII, it is worth noting that the

participants in our study were from just one country. Theresults might be different if we used students from othercountries, who might be exposed to physics at a leveldifferent from the one that the pool of students in this studywere exposed to. Having said this, however, the SCII can beused to examine such cultural differences. It should be alsostressed in concert with Engelhardt and Beichner [44] that,like any other assessment instrument, the SCII is not theend all be all of tests. It simply provides another data pointfor instructors and researchers to use to evaluate students’understanding. I agree with Engelhardt and Beichner [44]that “No one instrument or study can provide definitiveanswers. Data regarding students’ understanding should beconsidered like evidence of validity—requiring severalmeasurements through different means to arrive at the finalanswer.” Therefore, the SCII should be used alongsideother methods to provide credible and trustworthy assess-ments of students’ understanding of sound.

APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIREON THE TOPIC OF SOUNDS

Before you is a questionnaire about sound. It presents 27phenomena. Each phenomenon comes with several state-ments. For each statement, mark “true” or “false.” Inaddition, mark your level of certainty in the answer youhave given from 1 (not sure at all) to 5 (very sure).Remember that each phenomenon can have more thanone true statement.

1. Can there be a sound that we do not hear?a. Yes. Our ears admit only sound particles of

certain sizes. Animal ears admit different sizesof sound particles, so they can hear sounds wedon’t hear, and vice versa.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

b. Yes. We can hear because our eardrum candetect changes in the movement of the airsurrounding it. Our eardrum works in a certainrange of air pressure.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

c. None of the above choices fits my basic view-point. My basic viewpoint is (please explainyour viewpoint in the space provided below):

2. When we strum a guitar string, we hear a soundbecause:a. The vibrating string releases sound particles

and pushes them outward so they reach our ears.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

b. Each string releases and pushes outward soundparticles of different sizes, and that’s why theymake different sounds.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

c. The sound particles are actually in the air. Thevibrating string pushes them. Because they arepushed with varying force, we hear differentsounds.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

d. A vibrating string causes changes in the densityand pressure of the air around it. This changetravels to our ears and enable us to hear.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

e. None of the above choices fits my basic view-point. My basic viewpoint is (please explainyour viewpoint in the space provided below):

3. Please refer to the following sound characteristics:a. Sound is a moving change in air density

(connected to air pressure).True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

b. Sound moves because the air pushes it.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

c. Sound moves like an invisible liquid.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

d. Sound is not matter.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

e. None of the above choices fits my basic view-point. My basic viewpoint is:

DEVELOPMENT OF A STUDENT-CENTERED … PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES 10, 010102 (2014)

010102-9

4. Large auditoriums have acoustic ceilings. Thereason for this is:a. The acoustic ceilings absorb the sounds made in

the room like a sponge absorbs water.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

b. The acoustic ceilings are made of a special netthat allows the big sound particles to “catch”and stay in it.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

c. The acoustic ceiling reduces the reflection of airdensity changes (sound), which is caused bysound sources in the room, from the ceilingback to the room space.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

d. None of the above choices fits my basic view-point. My basic viewpoint is

5. Imagine that you’re standing at the mouth of a verydeep cave and you give a shout. An echo of yourshout is heard. The reason for this is:a. The sound particles coming out of your mouth

collides with the sides of the cave like a tennisball, and comes back to you after a time.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

b. Changes in air pressure and density created bythe shout return towards you from the walls ofthe cave after a time.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

c. None of the above choices fits my basic view-point. My basic viewpoint is

6. Imagine the following two situations: in one you arestanding on one end of a park, and your friend onthe other. Your friend speaks to you. In the secondsituation imagine yourself on one end of a large,closed auditorium, with your friend on the other end.The park and the auditorium are of equal size. Yourfriend speaks to you, saying the precise same thinghe had said in the park, at the same volume:a. In the auditorium I will hear at a lower volume

than in the park because the walls “absorb” thesound (like a sponge absorbs water).True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

b. In the auditorium I will hear better than in thepark, because the sound has nowhere to “run”and it stays in the room.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

c. I will hear louder in the room, because thesound particles colliding with the walls and roofreturn to the ears.

True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

d. The change in densityand air pressure causedby your speaking friend return to the room’sspace and thus I will be better hear in the room(if there is no echo effect).True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

e. None of the above choices fits my basic view-point. My basic viewpoint is

7. A man is drilling a hole in the ground at the center ofa large, empty park. Imagine that you are so faraway from the man that you can barely hear thedrill. Now, imagine that you are placing one of yourears to the ground, and close the other one. Thesound of drilling:a. Will not sound because the ground particles rub

against the sound and “disrupt” its ability topass.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

b. Will be heard, because the change in densitycaused by the drill travels through the ground.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

c. None of the above choices fits my basic view-point. My basic viewpoint is

8. When we speak:a. Our body releases sound particles that are

pushed out by the vocal chords.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

b. The size of the particles released is the reasonfor the difference between sounds.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

c. When we shout, our throat hurts because moresound particles come out and rub against thesides of our throat.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

d. We shake the air in our throats using our vocalchords. This shaken air makes a change inpressure that can travel distances. These pres-sure changes are, in effect, sound.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

e. The speed in which the chords shake the air andcause changes in air’s movement is relatedsomehow to the different sounds created bythem.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

f. The sound coming out of ourmouths is carried ininvisible bubbles. These bubbles are pushed by

HAIM ESHACH PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES 10, 010102 (2014)

010102-10

the air, and when they reach the hearer’s ears,the sound exits the bubbles and enters the ears.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

g. None of the above choices fits my basic view-point. My basic viewpoint is

9. An alarm clock is placed inside a vacuum bell jar (aglass or plastic vessel from which all the air can beremoved with a pump). The clock does not touch thewalls and the base of the bell jar. A man standingoutside the jar can hear the sound of the alarmclock. Now the air is removed from the bell jar. Theman outside it:a. Can’t hear the alarm because the sound is

trapped in the bell and can’t escape.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

b. Will hear the alarm because its sound isunconnected to the presence of the air around it.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

c. Will hear the alarm more loudly because nowthe air no longer rubs against the sound and“disrupts” its ability to move out.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

d. If wewere to enter the bell jar, we would be ableto hear the alarm (ignoring the fact that you willnot be able to breathe).True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

e. The sound of the alarm is very much dimin-ished because there is no air to transmit thechanges in air pressure (sound).True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

f. None of the above choices fits my basic view-point. My basic viewpoint is

10. Please refer to the following statements regardingthe propagation of sound in water:a. In water, sound particles are pushed by water

molecules.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

b. Sound can be heard in water because, like air,changes in density move from the source of thesound towards the hearer.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

c. In water, sound cannot be heard. The reason forthis is that water is denser than air, and the waterparticles therefore rub against the sound and“disrupt” its movement.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

d. None of the above choices fits my basicviewpoint. My basic viewpoint is

11. Doctors use stethoscopes to listen to our lungsbecause:a. The sound moves along the tubes of the

stethoscope without interruption from frictionwith the air.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

b. The stethoscope prevents the sound particlesfrom the lungs from colliding with soundparticles from other sources.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

c. In the stethoscope, the sound is preservedwithin the tubes and does not dissipate.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

d. Sounds from inside the body vibrate the dia-phragm (the side of the stethoscope attached tothe body), creating air density changes withinthe tubes of the stethoscope which travel up thetubing to the doctor’s ears.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

e. None of the above choices fits my basic view-point. My basic viewpoint is

12. We can hear sounds at different volumes: shouts andwhispers. The reason for this is:a. When we speak loudly we release more sound

particles which also hurt our throat.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

b. When we speak loudly we release bigger soundparticles which also hurt our throats.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

c. When we speak loudly the air’s pressure levelsgenerated near our mouth are greater.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

d. When we speak loudly we push the soundparticles faster.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

e. When we speak loudly we push the air withmore force. The air pushes the sound particlesfaster.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

f. None of the above choices fits my basic view-point. My basic viewpoint is

13. Imagine you are on the moon, and there’s anexplosion close by (there is no air on the moon).

DEVELOPMENT OF A STUDENT-CENTERED … PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES 10, 010102 (2014)

010102-11

a. I will hear the sound of the explosion, but thesound will be softer because there’s no air topush the sound to my ears.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

b. I will hear the sound of the explosion, but it willbe softer because gravity on the moon is lighterand the sound will disperse.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

c. Because there’s no air on the moon to bemoved, it is impossible to generate soundsonits space.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

d. I will hear the explosion louder than on Earthbecause in space there are no air molecules torub against the sound particles and disrupt theirprogress.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

e. In terms of sound transmission, there is nodifference between the moon and the Earth, andI will therefore hear the explosion at the samevolume I would on Earth.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

f. None of the above choices fits my basic view-point. My basic viewpoint is

14. Imagine that several long, thin tables have beenplaced before you. They are made of differentmaterials: plastic, wood, iron, Styrofoam, etc.Now you place your ear at one end of a table (adifferent one each time) and someone hits theother end.a. On the Styrofoam table the sound will be heard

because the styrofoam’s density is low andthere’s only small friction between the soundand the Styrofoam particles.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

b. On the wooden table the sound will be heardbecause the wood is dense and density change(sound) in the wood can travel from one edge toanother.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

c. None of the above choices fits my basic view-point. My basic viewpoint is

15. Imagine that you’ve blown up a balloon and put it toyour ear. Imagine that your friend places his mouthto the balloon and speaks to you through it. Will youhear your friend?a. Yes. Because the changes in pressure created by

your speaking friend travel through the balloon.

True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

b. No. Because the balloon blocks the passage ofthe sound particles that collide with it.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

c. None of the above choices fits my basic view-point. My basic viewpoint is

16. A trumpet player is playing in the town square.Imagine that you are nearby, and can hear the soundof the trumpet clearly. Now, you move away from thetrumpet player as he keeps playing. The sound of thetrumpet will be heard to you weaker because:a. Gravity pulls the sound downward, and as a

result it does not reach my ears.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

b. Sound rises, because it’s lighter than air, and asa result it does not reach my ear.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

c. As I move farther away, the intensity of thechanges in air pressure reaching my ears goesweaker (i.e. the changes in air density aresmaller).True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

d. As I move away from the trumpet, the soundparticles get farther away from each other, andfewer particles enter my ear.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

e. As I move away from the trumpet, the sound ofthe trumpet runs out.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

f. None of the above choices fits my basic view-point. My basic viewpoint is

17. Imagine that sounds are made inside a room. If youshut the door, the sound heard on its other side willhardly be heard. This is because:a. A significant part of the sound particles are

rebuffed (like a ball) by the walls and the door.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

b. A significant part of the sound is “absorbed”(like water in a sponge) in the walls and doorand thus most of it does not travel out.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

c. The walls and door significantly prevent thetransmission of changes in air pressure frominside the room to its outside.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

d. None of the above choices fits my basic view-point. My basic viewpoint is (please explainyour viewpoint in the space provided below):

HAIM ESHACH PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES 10, 010102 (2014)

010102-12

18. A boat’s motor can be either in or out of the water.Imagine that you’re at sea, far from a boat with itsmotor in the water. While your head is out of thewater, you can barely hear the motor. Now, imaginethat you put your ear in the water.a. You will hear the motor because changes in the

water’s density propagate through the water.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

b. The motor will not sound, because the frictionof the water will “disrupt” the sound’s ability tomove.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

c. None of the above choices fits my basic view-point. My basic viewpoint is (please explainyour viewpoint in the space provided below):

19. When you stand behind the door to a room in whichmusic is playing, you can still hear the musicbecause:a. The sound is made of small particles that can

pass through gaps, like the one between thedoor and the floor.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

b. The sound is made of different sized particles.The smallest ones can get through doors andwalls that are not totally sealed.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

c. The changes in air density formed in the gapbetween the door and the floor travel outside.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

d. The sounds in the room cause the wall tovibrate. The vibrating wall causes the air onthe other side to vibrate and slightly changes theair pressure there.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

e. None of the above choices fits my basicviewpoint. My basic viewpoint is (please ex-plain your viewpoint in the space pro-vided below):

20. Please refer to the following characteristics regard-ing sound:a. Sound is invisible matter.

True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

b. Sound is created by changes in the density of amatter that fills a space (medium). The changein the medium’s density propagates through it.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

c. Sound can also travel through vacuum (a placewithout matter)True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

d. The curves in Fig. 1 may represent the changein the density of the air moving from theloudspeaker, creating the sounds we hear.True/False. Certainty level in answer: 1, 2, 3,4, 5

e. None of the above choices fits my basic view-point. My basic viewpoint is (please explainyour viewpoint in the space provided below):

[1] D. Hestenes, M. Wells, and G. Swackhamer, Force conceptinventory, Phys. Teach. 30, 141 (1992).

[2] D. Hestenes and M. Wells, A mechanics baseline test,Phys. Teach. 30, 159 (1992).

[3] R. Beichner, Testing student interpretation of kinematicsgraphs, Am. J. Phys. 62, 750 (1994).

[4] R. Trumper, University students’ conceptions of basicastronomy concepts, Phys. Educ. 35, 9 (2000).

[5] I. Galili and A. Hazan, Learners’ knowledge in optics:Interpretation, structure and analysis, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 22,57 (2000).

[6] S. Vosniadou, C. Ioannides, A. Dimitrakopoulou, and E.Papademetriou, Designing learning environments to

promote conceptual change in science, Learn. Instr. 11,381 (2001).

[7] Z. Hrepic, D. A. Zollman, and N. S. Rebello, Identifyingstudents’ mental models of sound propagation: The roleof conceptual blending in understanding conceptual change,Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res., 6, 020114 (2010).

[8] R. E. Mayer, in Reconsidering Conceptual Change: Issuesin Theory and Practice, edited by M. Limon and L. Mason(Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands,2002), pp. 101–111.

[9] R. Good, N. Lederman, J. Gess-Newsome, W. McComas,and C. Cummins, A symposium and paper presented at theannual international meeting of the Association for the

FIG. 1 (color online). An illustration of a “loudspeaker” andcurves for question 20d.

DEVELOPMENT OF A STUDENT-CENTERED … PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES 10, 010102 (2014)

010102-13

Education of Teachers in Science, Akron, OH, 2000(unpublished).

[10] S. Chen, Development of an instrument to assess views onnature of science and attitudes toward teaching science,Sci. Educ. 90, 803 (2006).

[11] H. Eshach and J. L. Schwartz, Sound stuff? Naive materi-alism in middle-school students’ conceptions of sound, Int.J. Sci. Educ. 28, 733 (2006).

[12] R. Trumper, A cross-college age study of science andnonscience students’ conceptions of basic astronomy con-cepts in preservice training for high-school teachers, J. Sci.Educ. Technol. 10, 189 (2001).

[13] D. Layton, Science for the People (George Allen &UnwinLtd., London, 1973).

[14] F. Abd-El-Khalick, R. L. Bell, and N. G. Lederman, Thenature of science and instructional practice: Making theunnatural natural, Sci. Educ. 82, 417 (1998).

[15] N. G. Lederman, F. Abd-El-Khalick, B. L. Bell, and R. S.Schwartz, Views of nature of science questionnaire:Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ con-ceptionsofnatureofscience, J.Res.Sci.Teach.39, 497(2002).

[16] N. G. Lederman andM. O’Malley, Students’ perceptions oftentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources ofchange, Sci. Educ. 74, 225 (1990).

[17] J. Clement, in Handbook of Research Methodologies forScience and Mathematics Education, edited by R. Leshand A. Kelly (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 2000),pp. 341–385.

[18] R. S. Schwartz, N. G. Lederman, and B. A. Crawford,Developing views of nature of science in an authenticcontext: An explicit approach to bridging the gap betweennature of science and scientific inquiry, Sci. Educ. 88, 610(2004).

[19] N. Dogan and F. Abd-El-Khalick, Turkish grade 10 students’and science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Anational study, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 45, 1083 (2008).

[20] P. Tamir, An alternative approach to the construction ofmultiple-choice test items, J. Biol. Educ. 5, 305 (1971).

[21] P. Marmaroti and D. Galanopoulou, Pupils’ understandingof photosynthesis. A questionnaire for the simultaneousassessment of all aspects, Int. J. Sci. Educ. 28, 383 (2006).

[22] A. Ryan and G. Aikenhead, Students’ preconceptionsabout the epistemology of science, Sci. Educ., 76, 559(1992).

[23] I. Galili, Promotion of cultural content knowledge throughthe use of the history and philosophy of science, Sci. Educ.21, 1283 (2012).

[24] J. Lautrey and K. Mazens, Is children’s naive knowledgeconsistent? A comparison of the concepts of sound andheat, Learn. Instr. 14, 399 (2004).

[25] E. Boyes and M. Stanisstreet, Development of pupils’ ideasabout seeing and hearing—The path of light and sound,Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 9, 223 (1991).

[26] H. M. Asoko, J. Leach, and P. H. Scott, Proceedings ofthe Annual Conference of the British EducationalResearch Association, Roehampton Institute, London,1991 (unpublished).

[27] M. T. H. Chi, in Cognitive Models of Science: MinnesotaStudies in the Philosophy of Science edited by R. Giere(University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, 1992).

[28] M. T. H. Chi and J. D. Slotta, The ontological coherence ofintuitive physics, Cognit. Instr. 10, 249 (1993).

[29] M. T. H. Chi, J. D. Slotta, and N. A. de Leeuw, From thingsto processes: A theory of conceptual change for learningscience concepts, Learn. Instr. 4, 27 (1994).

[30] M. Reiner, J. D. Slotta, M. T. H. Chi, and L. B. Resnick,Naïve physics reasoning: A commitment to substance-based conceptions, Cognit. Instr. 18, 1 (2000).

[31] R. Driver, A. Squires, P. Rushworth, and V. Wood-Robinson,Making Sense of Secondary Science (Routledge,London, England, 1994).

[32] D. Watt and T. Russell, Sound, Pimary SPACE ProjectResearch Report (Liverpool University Press, Liverpool,England, 1990).

[33] Lucretius, On the Nature of the Universe (translated by R.E. Latham) (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, England,1951).

[34] R. J. Roedel, S. El-Ghazaly, T. R. Rhoads, and E. El-Sharawy, in Proceedings of Frontiers in EducationConference, Tempe, AZ, 1998 (unpublished).

[35] I. S. Caleon and R. Subramaniam, From Pythagoras toSauveur: Tracing the history of ideas about the nature ofsound, Phys. Educ. 42, 173 (2007).

[36] F. Yaghmaei, Content validity and its estimation, J. Gen.Internal Medicine 3, 25 (2003).

[37] D. M. Rubio, M. Berg-Weger, S. S. Tebri, E. S. Lee, and S.Rauch, Objectifying content validity: Conducting a contentvalidity study in social work research, Social WorkResearch 27, 94 (2003).

[38] J. W. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative and Quanti-tative Approaches (SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks,CA, 1994).

[39] G. Aikenhead and A. Ryan, The development of a newinstrument: Views on Science-Technology-Society(VOSTS), Sci. Educ., 76, 477 (1992).

[40] P. A. Rubba, C. Schoneweg Bradford, and W. J. Harkness,A new scoring procedure for the Views on ScienceTechnology–Society instrument, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 18,387 (1996).

[41] D. A. Erlandson, E. L. Harris, B. L. Skipper, and S. D.Allen, Doing Naturalistic Inquiry (SAGE Publications,Newbury Park, CA, 1993).

[42] S. Vosniadou and W. F. Brewer, Mental models of the day/night cycle, Cogn. Sci. 18, 123 (1994).

[43] T. K. Au, A. L. Siddle, and K. B. Rollins, Developing anintuitive understanding of conservation and contamination:Invisible particles as a plausible mechanism, Dev. Psychol.29, 286 (1993).

[44] P. V. Engelhardt and R. J. Beichner, Students’ understand-ing of direct current circuits, Am. J. Phys. 72, 98(2004).

[45] N. S. Rebello and D. A. Zollman, The effect of distracterson student performance on the force concept inventory,Am. J. Phys. 72, 116 (2004).

HAIM ESHACH PHYS. REV. ST PHYS. EDUC. RES 10, 010102 (2014)

010102-14